Indispensability and Article 102 TFEU: it is not about Bronner (and refusals), but about Van den Bergh Foods (and remedies)
By Pablo Ibañez Colomo, Chilling Competition
As you know, the hearing in the Google Shopping case took place last month – speaking of which: huge thanks to Lewis Crofts for his quasi-live tweeting of what was going on (all that follows is what I gathered from his reporting).
The question of the applicable legal test was always going to be central in Google Shopping. Lewis’s tweets confirm this view. A lot of time was spent, it seems, on whether the Commission should have established that non-discriminatory display on the Google platform was indispensable within the meaning of Bronner (and, I would presume, IMS Health, which provides the most precise definition of the concept in the case law).
CONTINUE READING…
Featured News
DirecTV and Disney Resolve Dispute, Restore Programming for Subscribers
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Authority Raises Concerns Over Vodafone-Three Merger
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Brazilian Supreme Court Lifts Freeze on Starlink Accounts, Transfers $3.3 Million to National Treasury
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Steptoe Expands Antitrust Practice with Key London Hire
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Instant Ad Auctions at the Heart of Google’s Federal Monopoly Case
Sep 15, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
Francisco Javier Núñez Melgoza
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
Julio Garcia
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
Alejandra Palacios Prieto
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
Mateo Fernández